User talk:Fsk
Hi there, Fsk, and welcome to the GalCiv Wiki! Could I ask you to sign things where you're stating a personal opinion, like "x costs too much" or "I think this is untrue."? You can sign a post by putting ~~~ at the end, or ~~~~ to include the date. In general, if you're saying something with "I" in, it should also go on the discussion tab of a page, so that it's open for others to debate as well. The main article page is intended to contain text written in the third-person that is agreed on, unless the page is specifically for discussion (such as the help desk). Thanks, and again, welcome! --GreenReaper(talk) 08:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Well, some stuff, like for strategy articles and requested features, it is 100% opinion anyway. fsk+ asks * Has someone from Stardock looked at my "bugs and requested features" page? http://galciv.wikia.com/wiki/Bugs_and_Requested_Features I put a bit of effort into it, and I was wondering if it was wasted. :Up until this point, I suspect that nobody from Stardock has looked at it. There is no official Stardock presence on this site other than myself, and I tend to just look in every few days to check that things have not broken. The place for official bug reporting is the forums. I've dropped a note to the team leader, but I would suggest that you point people at the wiki page in your posts there in order to gain attention and allow others to add or edit bugs. * I submitted an "improved planetary improvements" mod, and it's been "pending approval" for quite some time now. What's up with that? An earlier version was rejected, but I received no reason. :No idea. You'd have to ask whoever is in charge of mod approval (if it's Brad, it might be a while, since he's on holiday). I just do wikis, and that's technically a sideline. I'll ask who it is when I get back to work on Monday. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 18:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC) * Well, did someone from Stardock look at my "bugs and requested features" page? I spent a bit of effort on it. Yes, I did post it on the forums, but nobody really noticed. (And I know nobody noticed, because nobody's been editing the page besides me.) :I know Cari's seen it, because I pointed it out to her - but Cari sees a lot of things in a day. The only system that she's guaranteed to be looking at is the internal GalCiv 2 bug database, combined from stuff sent to gc2bugs and things that come in from support emails and the forums. * My mod is still in the "pending approval stage". Really, someone should get back to me. If I go to the trouble of writing and submitting a mod, someone should get back to me and either approve it or tell me why not. :I agree. I've sent an email asking about that. Most likely it is Brad, whether or not he got to it before leaving on his business trip I don't know (though he could probably check it from there, if he has time). ::I got a few replies to the email. The general feeling is that we want to put some trustworthy forum members in charge of that kind of thing, because everyone else here already has more than enough on their plate. I think we will be looking into that over the next few weeks. --GreenReaper(talk) 16:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC) :::Am I considered trustworthy? I'd be more interested in reviewing mods for rebalancing game data. (I.e., new social projects; rebalancing the tech tree; rebalancing ship components.) Are you going to "reward" people for doing it somehow? (For example, if someone does a really good job, you could give them some free totalgaming.net tokens.) ::::I'd be reasonably trusting of you, but I don't handle the mods right now. :-) ::::I would guess there would be some compensation involved. You'd probably have to talk to one of Cari/Scott/Brad about that. --GreenReaper(talk) 03:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC) * Another question: Frogboy mentioned "The feature list for 1.2 is complete.", but I could not find a list of the features anywhere. What's going to be in v1.2? :I don't know. It may be complete, but I don't think it's public yet. --GreenReaper(talk) 14:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC) * My 3 mods were rejected without explanation. I don't mind too much that they're rejected (I'm planning on making a better version after 1.2 comes out), but I do mind that they were rejected without explanation. If I went to the trouble of writing and submitting them, I think I should at least get an explanation for the rejection. :My guess would be they didn't work properly with the current version - but that's only a guess. I don't know who actually worked through the queue (I tried asking, but there's not usually many people around on the weekends). Probably your best bet would be to post a question on the forums and see if anyone there knows what's up. I agree that it seems odd to reject without reasoning. --GreenReaper(talk) 19:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)